Last week I had the pleasure of joining a panel on social media and politics at the Milken Global Conference.  The Conference targets CEOs and featured Nobel-prize winning economists, major nation defense ministers, Olympic athletes, and this year, Rush Limbaugh.  So what was I doing there?

Social media’s role in politics fascinates even the triple-Ivy-league credentialed academic.  How is the social web effecting who we elect and how we elect them?  Will the social web have long-term effects on the shape of our democracy?  Will the candidate who best understands social media prevail?

Our panel responded to these questions and more with a summary of our discussion below:

Candidates Must No Longer Run and Hide.

Voters expect candidates to make a presence and engage voters where they are: Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and dozens of smaller social networks.  These virtual meeting places are today’s version of town fairs, civic club meetings and after school programs, except online they take place around-the-clock.  This means candidates can make their presence felt on their own time; conversely, once they begin to engage with supporters, they set a standard for the level of activity expected of them.

Authenticity Rules the Day.

Some candidates have “the gift:” this is the smooth-talking, heart-string pulling appeal of Presidents old and new, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama respectively.  Such candidates have a unique ability to win over voters with their authenticity, although one could make a strong argument that their perceived authenticity is as big an act as your average politician.  No matter, candidates with “the gift,” have a natural ability to rule social media too.  They have an appeal; they inspire you to connect with them; they win you over with their hopeful message.  Ronald Reagan, had he been running today, would thrive in the social media.

So what is a candidate to do who has less of “the gift?” They could be themselves for one; and treat their supporters as friends, valued members of their team, and the key to their electoral success.  After all, roughly 20% of Internet users, according to Pew, received and/or shared information through a social network in the 2008 elections.  Social network participants are real people, and the network is purely an easier, more efficient and personal way of communicating with them than traditional media.  It’s not a new phenomenon for the more likeable candidate to win an election; social media platforms allow candidates to feature their likeability, if they choose to open up and let the walls down.

More Networked, Less Dependent on Money(wo)men.

The social web is the ultimate flattener of influence.  Through most social networks, every individual has the same opportunity for influencing the greater community, and thus one would assume, the candidates they support.  One is ranked by how interesting and involved they are, and not by the amount of money they have to contribute.  Popularity matters instead, as the number of friends one has determines their value as an advocate for the candidates and issues they support.

Most social networks are purely democratic institutions; their members, particularly America’s youth, are being socialized to expect an equal stake in historically heirarchical institutions like our government.  Populism sells on social networks, a lesson for tomorrow’s candidates.  The questions is whether the influence of online networks — where membership is free — will surpass the influence of money in politics, and if so, when?

Social Score Does Not Equal Voter Score.

Or does it?  Barack Obama currently has over 6,000,000 Facebook supporters while John McCain has less than 600,000.  If an election were held today, would Obama receive ten times more votes than McCain? Of course not.  So how good of an indicator of voter support is Facebook, or any social network?  The most socially networked candidate is not necessarily the most popular at the ballot box.  Ron Paul had many more Facebook supporters than most of his primary challengers; yet, they received more votes than he did.

But, we shouldn’t ignore social network support just yet.  Candidates who understand the value of running an authetic campaign, and the importance of communicating with and engaging every interested person online, most likely exhibits those characteristics offline as well.  The campaign who treats a Facebook organizer the same as the way they treat a $300 donor is likely to earn favor from more voters than the one who has a static politican profile.  And yes, the campaign that makes an effort to engage voters through Facebook, when their opponent is absent, is more likely to win.  Social networks matter.

What’s Next?

I don’t know what is the next MySpace, Flickr, LinkedIn, Facebook, Ning or Twitter, but if history repeats itself, we will all be socially networked on new, improved platforms by the time we cast our vote for President in 2012.  Remember Friendster?